Sherrill: Proper Burden Allocation in Plain-Error Review of Unpreserved Public-Trial Right Claims

Introduction

In People of the State of Michigan v. Allen Michael Sherrill (SC: 167769; May 16, 2025), the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal a Court of Appeals decision affirming Sherrill’s convictions for involuntary manslaughter, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony-firearm. The core issue, vigorously pressed by the defendant and highlighted in Justice Bolden’s dissent, was whether Sherrill’s Sixth Amendment and Michigan Constitution (art. 1, § 20) right to a public trial was violated—and, if so, whether the lower court applied the correct plain-error standard when the defense failed to object at trial. The courtroom had been closed to spectators due to COVID-19 social-distancing orders and local administrative directives, with proceedings live-streamed on YouTube. Defendant’s mother was forcibly removed mid-trial, and no contemporaneous objection was recorded. The dissent argues that the Court of Appeals misallocated the burden of proof under the plain-error framework established in People v. Davis (509 Mich 52, 2022), undermining confidence in the outcome.

Summary of the Judgment

By order dated May 16, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ September 12, 2024 decision. The majority concluded that the questions presented did not warrant the high court’s review. Justice Bolden dissented, contending that the Court of Appeals applied an incorrect standard of review to Sherrill’s unpreserved public-trial claim. She would have granted leave or vacated and remanded the case for proper application of the plain-error test for structural errors under Davis.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

People v. Davis (509 Mich 52, 2022): Established that an unpreserved challenge to the right to a public trial is a forfeited structural error. Under Davis, the third prong of the four-part Carines plain-error test (prejudice) is automatically satisfied, and the burden shifts to the prosecution to rebut a presumption that the error “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding.”
People v. Vaughn (491 Mich 642, 2012): Reaffirmed that courtroom closure must be no broader than necessary, that reasonable alternatives be considered, and that adequate findings support the closure—quoting Presley v. Georgia (558 US 209, 214, 2010) and Waller v. Georgia (467 US 39, 48, 1984).
People v. Carines (460 Mich 750, 763, 1999): Articulated the four-prong plain-error test: (1) error occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error either resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings.
Presley v. Georgia and Waller v. Georgia: Supreme Court cases setting federal standards for the public-trial right, adopted by Michigan courts.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Bolden’s dissent focuses on the interplay between Davis and Carines. Under Davis, an unpreserved public-trial claim is a structural error that “affects the framework within which the trial proceeds.” Such errors trigger two special rules:

Prong 3 (prejudice) of the Carines test is automatically satisfied; a defendant need not show “outcome-determinative” prejudice.
Prong 4 carries a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, shifting the burden to the prosecutor to demonstrate the error did not “seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation” of the proceeding.

The Court of Appeals, however, required Sherrill to prove all four Carines prongs, including prejudice and outcome-determinative effect—contrary to Davis’s instructions. Because the panel imposed the entire burden on the defendant, Justice Bolden doubts whether its conclusion affirming the conviction can stand. She further questions the panel’s reliance on local COVID-19 orders and Administrative Order 2020-6 (since rescinded) as sufficient substitute findings for courtroom closure, pointing to Davis’s insistence that trial courts themselves make adequate, on-the-record findings about alternatives and necessity.

Impact

If adopted by the majority, Bolden’s view would clarify and stabilize Michigan law on public-trial forfeitures. Trial judges would be compelled to make explicit factual findings when closing a courtroom and explore less restrictive measures. Appellate courts would uniformly apply the Davis framework: automating prong 3, shifting prong 4’s burden to the prosecutor, and reserving full Carines analysis only for preserved errors. Without this correction, conflicting published opinions risk undermining defendants’ structural safeguards and public confidence in Michigan’s justice system.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Structural Error: A fundamental defect in the trial process—such as denial of the right to a public trial—that affects the entire framework of proceedings and cannot be quantified by harmless-error analysis.
Forfeiture vs. Waiver: Forfeiture occurs when a defendant fails to object in a timely manner, but the right is still reviewable under plain-error standards. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right, barring appellate review.
Plain-Error Test (Carines): A four-part standard: (1) clear error, (2) obvious under current law, (3) affects substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, or results in conviction of an actually innocent defendant.
Burdens of Proof in Plain Error: In typical forfeited claims, the defendant bears the burden of all four prongs. For structural errors, however, Michigan’s Davis decision automates prong 3 and places a rebuttable presumption on prong 4—shifting that burden to the prosecution.
Reasonable Alternatives: Before closing a courtroom, a trial judge must consider less restrictive options—such as partial closures, redaction of sensitive testimony, regulated entry and exit—and explain on the record why these were insufficient.

Conclusion

Justice Bolden’s dissent in People v. Sherrill underscores a critical gap between Michigan’s structural-error doctrine and the Court of Appeals’ practice. By misapplying Davis and Carines, the panel risked upending the public-trial guarantee without properly allocating burdens. Once fully embraced by the court, the clarified standard will ensure that unpreserved public-trial claims receive consistent, transparent, and fair analysis—safeguarding both defendants’ rights and the integrity of Michigan’s judicial system.